The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign
nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as
little political connection as possible."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796) [Washington’s emphasis]

I deem [one of] the essential principles of our
government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its
administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)

"Isolationism" has
many negatives. For decades in America, "isolationism" has
been a smear word. In many circles it is associated with hostility
towards foreign nations and cultures, nativism, and ignorance.
And in fact, many U.S.
isolationists in the past weren't just for political non-intervention.
They wanted to restrict trade and travel. To build a "wall"
around America, creating a so-called "Fortress America." Some
even felt America should be totally self-sufficient: trading with no
one.
None of that, of course, has
anything to do with libertarian foreign policy views. Libertarians favor
free trade, the freedom to travel, diplomacy, and lively and ongoing
cultural interaction with people worldwide.
A far better word for this is
"non-intervention." Libertarians are
"non-interventionists."
That's still a clumsy word,
unfortunately, and it is better understood when coupled with a short
description of what it means, such as I gave two paragraphs ago.
It's also sometimes helpful to
describe this as "America's original foreign policy" or
"the Founder's foreign policy," and to quote the classic
Jefferson line: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations; entangling alliances with none."
Some wit once said that the
difference between "isolationists" and
"non-interventionists" is that the former are hermits, while
the latter are gentlemen.Ron
Paul has put it very well: "Non-interventionism is not
isolationism. Non-intervention simply means America does not interfere
militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other
nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary,
our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy
with other nations."
Finally, it is sometimes useful to
point out that the current U.S. foreign policy of endless intervention
in the affairs of other nations, U.S. troops and military bases in
almost every nation, sanctions, trade barriers, travel restrictions, and
aid to tyrants and dictators is increasingly isolating America from the
rest of the world. In this sense, the true "isolationists"
actually are the interventionists.
When someone labels libertarians as
isolationists, they are knowingly or unknowingly smearing us and
misrepresenting our views. This should be corrected, in a friendly and
persuasive way, so our true ideas can be understood and embraced.

To call Jefferson, Washington, or Ron Paul an
"isolationist" is uninformed or deliberately misleading. And
there is great irony here. If a candidate believes it's good policy to
overthrow foreign governments by bombing thousands of innocent
non-combatant civilians and replacing the secular regime with an Islamic
theocracy, and then imposing tariffs and protectionist sanctions
on nations that oppose U.S. nation-building,
cutting off trade, cutting off travel, and in numerous other ways
isolating Americans from these nations and their people, their commerce,
and their culture, he is not called an "isolationist."

Scott Horton's Antiwar
Radio has featured some of the most important intellectuals,
journalists, and political figures of our day, and its archive is a
treasure trove of knowledge. Scott suggests the following as some of
his best and most informative interviews. Access his full
archive, subscribe
to his podcast, and listen
live from 12:00pm-2:00pm Eastern.